10.07.2015 Views

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Parliament. But he has never purported to undertake such a task.. But he hasnever purported to undertake such a task. In promulgating the order in GN.41/92, the Minister was only doing what he is allowed and empowered to doby the Rent Restriction Act-namely to exempt the premises owned by thespecified parastatals from the provisions law or order does not meanrepealing or amending that particular law or Order. It simply means that thatparticular law will not operate on a specified individual, body of individuals orOrganization. Hence you may have the Minster of Finance being empoweredto exempt certain organizations from the operations of say the Sales Tax Act.This does not mean that the Finance Minister is empowered to amend theSales Tax Act. The contention in this ground therefore fails.We have already held that the misapplication of the Rent Restriction Act tothe premises owned by the second respondent, did not leave the appellantshelpless without any remedy against the second respondent’s arbitrary orcapricious actions. We have already held that the applellants or other tenantsof the second respondent can still go to the ordinary Courts to enforce theirrights under the tenancy agreements or to challenge the rents fixed by thesecond respondents under its new acquired authority. In the circumstances,we do not agree with Mr. Matata that the appellants’ right to go to the ordinaryCourts is illusory as we do not see any reason which can prevent them fromgoing to the ordinary Courts to enforce their rights as . The contention inground 4 similarly fails.532

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!